IR 05000263/1982003
| ML20058D897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1982 |
| From: | Charles Brown, Madison A, Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D864 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-82-03, 50-263-82-3, IEB-82-01, IEB-82-02, IEB-82-1, IEB-82-2, NUDOCS 8207270434 | |
| Download: ML20058D897 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-263/82-03(DPRP)
Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Facility Name: Monticello Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At: Monticello Site Inspection Conducted: May 3-28, 1982 hf Y
IW
?/9/W I
Inspectors:
C. H. pwn
/
e v/9/r2-
-
',
A. L.C'M iso f.
l7 y gg.
N V
"J Approved By:j
. A. Reyes, tief Projects Se tion 2c Inspection Summary Inspection on May 3-28, 1982 (Report No. 50-263/82-03(DPRP))
Areas Inspected: Routine safety inspection of plant operations; surveillance; followup on Licensee Event Reports; followup of IE Bulletins; followup of IE Circulars; receipt of new fuel; onsite review function; RHR/RHR heat exchanger leak and subsequent release to the river. The inspection involved a total of 104 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors including 21 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified in seven areas. One item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Failure to notify NRC Operations Center of an accidental radioactive release within or.e hour - Paragraph 9).
7207270434 820712 PDR ADOCK 05000263
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
__
_
._. _ _ _ _ - _
.
.
.
DETAILS e
l 1.
Persons Contacted l
- W. A. Shamla, Plant Manager
- M.
II. Clarity, Plant Superintendent, Engineering and Radiation Protection
- H. M. Kendall, Plant Office Manager D. D. Antony, Superintendent, Operating Engineering W. E. Anderson, Plant Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance
- R.
L. Scheinost, Superintendent, Quality Engineering j
- J. R. Pasch, Superintendent, Security and Services
- F.
L. Fey, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
-
!
W. J. Hill, Superintendent. Technical Engineering I
- W. W. Albold, Superintendent of Maintenance l
I
The inspectors also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees, l
Including members of the technical and engineering staffs and reactor and i
auxiliary operators.
- Denotes those licensee representatives attending the management
,
interviews.
2.
Operational Safety Verification The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable I
l logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the
!
month of May. The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return
l to service of affected components. Tours of the reactor buildings and j
turbine buildings were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations
,
and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment j
l in need of maintenance. The inspector by observation and direct inter-
!
view verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in l
accordance with the station security plan.
E The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and
,
verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During the
'
month of May, the inspector walked down the accessible portions of the l
Standby Liquid Control systems to verify operability. The inspector i
also witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.
l These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under
'
f technical specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
I
,
f (
b
!
i
I
__.m-
- _ _ _. _ -.
-
.,,
-
~
s.
_ _ _ - _ _, _ _.
,,,_,__..-_-____._..~,_m_
-
.
... -... ~
.
..
.
i
.
.
3.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The inspector observed technical specifications required surveillance testing on the Rod Block Monitor Downscale and Flow Variable Rod Block Calibration No. 0046 and verified that testing was performed in ac-cordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that j
removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test results conformed with technical specifications and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual
.
directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management
'
personnel.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:
APRM Monthly Scram and Rod Block Functional Test No. 0012B.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
4.
Licensee Event Reports Followup Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with technical specifications.82-006 RilR/RilR Service Water llent Exchanger Leak
'
(See Paragraph No. 9)80-028 Steam Leak in RCIC Steam Drain Line
'
Due to repetitive occurrences of steam leaks in the drain lines, the drain lines for steam traps in llPCI and RCIC systems were changed to stainless steel piping and a procedure change was issued.
Design Change No. 80M090 covered this modification.80-029 Steam Leak in Main Steam Drain Line The steam drain line fitting leaks had recurred for several years.
A Design Change No. 80M090 modified the drains and piping and replaced the piping with stainless steel.79-024 Steam Lenk in RCIC Steam Line Drain 90 Elbow Similar to 80-028 and 80-029 and similar fix under Design Change No. 80M090.
...
..
-
____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
O 81-020 Steam Leak in Main Steam Drain Line Similar to the above repair under Design Change No. 80M090.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
IE Bulletin Followup For the IE Bulletins listed below the inspector verified that the Bulletin was received by licensee management and reviewed for its applicability to the facility.
If the Bulletin was applicable the inspector verified that the written response was within the time period stated in the Bulletin, that the written response included the information required to be reported, that the written response included adequate corrective action commitments based on information presented in the Bulletin and the licensee's response, that the licensee management forwarded copies of the written response to the appropriate onsite management representatives, that information dis-cussed in the licensee's written response was accurate, and that corrective action taken by the licensee was as described in the written response.
For Bulletins sent to the licensee for information, the inspector verified that the bulletins were received by licensee management and a review for applicability was conducted.
82-01 Alteration of Radiographs of Welds in Piping Subassemblies No action was required to be taken by the Monticello Plant.
82-02 Degradation of Threaded Fasteners in the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary of PWR Plants Not applicable to the Monticello Plant.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
IE Circular Followup For the IE Circulars listed below, the inspector verified that the Circular was received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, and that if the circular were applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions were taken or were scheduled to be taken.
81-05 Self-Aligning Rod End Bushings for Pipe Supports Not applicable to Monticello.
81-06 Potential Deficiency Affecting Certain Foxboro 10 to 50 Mil 11 ampere Transmitters Not applicable to Monticello.
i
_
.
. _
...
.
I
_
-
-
-
_-
.
_
_
_
.. _ _ -
.
.
81-09 Containment Effluent Water that Bypasses Radioactivity Monitor All effluents from containment are monitored and isolation is
'
automatic on containment high pressure.
81-11 Inadequate Decay Heat Removal During Reactor Shutdown
'
Procedures were reviewed and additional section was added for
!
shutdown operations.
81-12 Inadequate Periodic Test Procedure of PWR Protection System
!
Design Change 80Z024 provided RPS with solid state AC-operated
!
circuit breakers with testabic trip functions.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
i 7.
Receipt of New Fuel The inspector verified prior to receipt of new fuel that technically adequate, approved procedures were available covering the receipt,
!
inspection, and storage of new fuel; observed receipt inspections and storage of new fuel elements and verified these activities were per-
,
'
formed in accordance with the licensee's procedures; and, followed up resolutions of deficiencies as found during new fuel inspections.
i i
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
l 8.
Onsite Review Committee i
!
The inspector examined the onsite review functions conducted during the period of the month of May to verify conformance with technical specifications and other regulatory requirements. This review Included: changes since the previous inspection in the charter and/or
administrative procedure governing review group activities; review group membership and qualifications; review group meeting frequency and quorum; and, activities reviewed including proposed technical specification changes, noncompliance items and corrective action, proposed facility and procedure changes and proposed tests and experiments conducted per 10 CFR 50.59, and others required by technical specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
9.
RHR Heat Exchanger Leak On May 3, 1982, at approximately 2:00 p.m. the operators completed a cooldown of the torus water using the "B" RHR heat exchanger. At approximately 6:00 p.m. a "Hi Rad" alarm was received in the control room on the process monitor on the service water discharge header.
This header receives water from several sources. The operators began an attempt to isolate the source of the activity and a sample of the water being discharged was taken to verify the validity of the alarm.
I Due to the small amount of activity present, the sample was placed on
t
!
,
-.
.. - -
-. _. _.
.. _ - -
. - - - _ - _ - _ _
. - - - -
..
_
- -.
_
.
.
a long count.
By 11:00 p.m. the alarm had been verified. An unplan-ned release determination should have been made at this time.
10 CFR Part 50.72(a)(8) requires that the NRC be notified within one hour of events of this nature, and this was not performed until 8:00 a.m. on May 4.
This is considered to be an item of noncompliance (263/82-03-01).
A problem with the installed process monitor (no flhw) hampered efforts to identify and isolate the leak.
Because of this and the leaking RHR Service Water discharge valves, the radioactive Icak was not isolated until approximately 1:30 a.m. on May 4 when the manual RHR Service Water discharge valves were shut.
The release was calculated to be approximately 0.1% of the continuous release Technical Specifications limits. The flow rate of the leak was shown to be approximately two gal, per minute.
The leak was from the floating head gasket of "A" RHR Heat Exchanger.
The repair was made by adding a seal weld to the floating head / tube sheet gasket area. An operating procedure change was also issued to ensure that the pressure differential is always in the proper direction.
The licensee is reviewing all problems that were identified during the event. The problem with the leaking isolation valves was in-vestigated and was identified to be due to a seal missing on the balance chamber of both valves.
Both valves had been installed
,
during the 1981 outage. These valves had been received and installed as assembled units. The licensee is investigating the cause of the missing seals. The installed process monitor is being reviewed to determine if a design change is necessary to correct the flow problems that this system experiences with variations in the service water
,
discharge flow rates.
RHR heat exchanger "B" is to be cleaned and a l
seal weld applied similar to the "A" heat exchanger during the outage i
this fall. The heat exchanger vendor has recommended a new head design which the licensee has under review. The licensee is developing a periodic hydro test to verify integrity of the heat exchangers to be performed every, or every other, refueling outage.
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Regional Requests The resident inspector was requested by Region III to determine the manufacturer of installed bullet resistant fire doors and determine if the licensee had documentation specifically confirming that the
,
doors had been tested an appoved for fire resistance by a nationally
!
l recognized laboratory.
It was determined the doors were manufactured by Protective Materials Company. The licensee did not have docu-mentation that specifically confirmed the doors, as supplied, han
!
been tested and approved by a nationally recognized laboratory. The I
licensee agreed to provide such documentation by July 1982.
In the event that the documentation cannot be provided by that date, the licensee agreed to consider the doors to be inoperable at that time i
l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e
.~
and impicment applicable compensatory measures specified in the technical specifications. This is an unresolved item (263/82-03-02)
pending review of the documentation to be provided by the licensee.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Unresolved Items Unresolved Items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable or Items of Noncom-pliance. An Unresolved Item identified during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph 10.
12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
throughout the month and at the conclusion of the inspection on June 4, 1982, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
The licensee acknowledged the item of noncompliance.
__